Bleck
Smash Master
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 3,133
The majority of "toxic waste" is toxic because of the presence of radiation, hazardous chemicals or pathogens.Bleck would make a good lawyer for a company that caused a toxic waste spill that poisoned a town's water supply. You can't prove definitively that toxic waste is what caused anyone to get sick after all!
"Correlation doesn't imply causation, ladies and gentlemen of the jury."
We know those things to be dangerous because we know how they function (ionizing radiation causes cell degradation through damage to DNA, hazardous chemicals can be corrosive, poisonous or flammable, and pathogens are, well, pathogens). In those situations, correlation still doesn't imply causation ("there's radioactive materials in the river, so therefore this person must be suffering from radiation toxicity"), but rather the correlation can be inferred from the causation ("this person is suffering from radiation toxicity, so there must be a source of dangerous radiation nearby and oh hey look the river is glowing").
Unlike radiation toxicity, however, there isn't currently any data on how hormones supposedly directly affect mood via chemical changes in the brain. There is a lot of data that suggests correlation between the two, but nothing with regards to causation.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but see above.Sorry to burst your bubble, but Binary linked this.
(B Inger et al, Negative mood changes during hormone replacement therapy, 2000)
Yes. In behavioral neuroscience, inferences based on observation of behavior with and without the presence of a variable (also known as empirical evidence) aren't valid demonstrations of cause and effect.Are inferences based on the observations of hormone-release patterns of individuals when subjected to specific external stimuli, or the observations of how an individual's behavior changes when the concentration of X hormone is increased/decreased in their bodies functionally equivalent to "they just do"?
Yes. The tests on other animals that you're referring to don't prove that testosterone causes aggression, but rather suggest a link between the two (and yes, I'm comfortable in claiming that about all studies that currently exist with regards the link between testosterone and aggression). This is why all sources of information on this topic use phrasing like "linked to", "tends to be", "proposes that", "is associated with", etc. - because there is no information to suggest that the sentence "the presence of testosterone causes increased aggression" is true.So you're saying that the lifestyle changes brought on by the effects of steroid use, which to clarify is simply the act of having to pin yourself twice a week (since that is the only necessary lifestyle change), is a more likely explanation of increased aggression in steroid users as opposed to the premise that increased testosterone is what causes increased aggression, which has been tested repeatedly to be true in other animals?
Yes.I think the point Bleck is trying to make is its incredibly sexist to dismiss a woman because she goes through hormonal periods each month.
Sure wish I had a PS4.BLOODBORNE IN A WEEK LETS GOOOOO
Last edited: